Now at a stable URL, last Friday’s interview mostly concentrated on our editor’s new book The Rule of Lawyers (David Isaac (interviewer), “Frivolous Lawsuits Creating New Power Class — Lawyers”, Jun. 13, reprinted at Manhattan Institute site).
Archive for June, 2003
Batch of reader letters
Special all-critical edition — nothing but letters taking issue with us. Topics include the MTV “Jack Ass” suit, Ann Arbor substitute teachers, the ADA, high verdicts as an inspiration to young lawyers, and medical malpractice.
Link to archives before Jun. 23, 2003
If you are reading Overlawyered archives in backward sequence, this marks the breakpoint between new and old archiving systems. To continue reading back in time for our commentaries before June 20, 2003, proceed to our archive page (old system) for second part of June 2003. If you know you want an earlier date than that, proceed to our guide to old archives.
Posts that follow below with dates earlier than Jun. 20, 2003 in our new archive system are intended for housekeeping purposes, to establish many of the resources of the old site in locations where they can easily be found by search on the new.
Lawsuit urban legends
The following advisory originally appeared Aug. 27, 2001 on Overlawyered in slightly different form. It is reprinted here because it is among the information most often requested by visitors to the site.
You’ve probably seen it in your inbox: a fast-circulating email, often labeled “Stella Awards”, which lists six awful-sounding damage awards (to a hubcap thief injured when the car drives off, a burglar trapped in a house who had to eat dog food, etc.). Circumstantial details such as dates, names, and places make the cases sound more real, but all signs indicate that the list is fictitious from beginning to end, reports the urban-legends site Snopes.com (Barbara Mikkelson, “Inboxer rebellion: tortuous torts“). Snopes also has posted detailed discussions of two of the other urban legends we get sent often, the “contraceptive jelly” yarn, which originated with a tabloid (“A woman sued a pharmacy from which she bought contraceptive jelly because she became pregnant even after eating the jelly (with toast).” — “Jelly babied“) and the cigar-arson fable (“A cigar aficionado insures his stogies against fire, then tries to collect from his insurance company after he smokes them.” — “Cigarson“). And the story about the man setting the cruise control in his new Winnebago recreational vehicle, leaving the driver’s seat, and then suing the company after the resulting accident? That’s an urban legend too. What we wonder is, why would people want to compile lists of made-up legal bizarreries when they can find a vast stockpile of all-too-real ones just by visiting this website [and in particular its personal responsibility archives, older and newer series]?
NAMES IN STORIES: The never-happened stories include tales about “Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas” (trips on her toddler in furniture store); “Carl Truman of Los Angeles” (hubcap theft) “Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania” (trapped in house), “Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas” (bit by dog after shooting it with pellet gun), “Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania” (slips on drink she threw), and “Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware” (breaks teeth while sneaking through window into club). All these incidents, to repeat, appear to be completely fictitious and unrelated to any actual persons with these names.
Lawyers’ advertising and solicitation generally
The following links and commentaries were written circa 1999 for Overlawyered.com.
Chapter 1 of your editor’s The Litigation Explosion (1991), unfortunately not online, tells the story of how in the 1970s the mood in elite legal circles changed: client-chasing by lawyers, long considered a serious ethical breach, began to be viewed less unfavorably as litigation itself came to be seen as socially positive rather than destructive. The shift culminated in decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court according Constitutional protection to most lawyer advertising and some solicitation.
Solicitation: some extreme cases
Among cases mentioned in The Litigation Explosion are those where lawyers’ agents posed as a priest to mingle among grieving families after an air crash, and as Red Cross workers to dig out and sign up survivors after a store collapse. (Even in today’s much-relaxed climate, these sorts of practices still expose attorneys to punishment if they can be proved.) Ken Dornstein’s book Accidentally on Purpose reports on how personal injury operators set up a supposed religious charity, the “Friends of the Friendless”, whose real function was to secure them access to patients in the giant Los Angeles County Medical Center; “techniques included pressing an unconscious patient’s inked thumb to a legal retainer and threatening those who said no with deportation”.
This September 1998 Cincinnati Enquirer article reports on a case where a lawyer was accused of soliciting a dead man.
Lawyer promotion on the Web:
Client-chasing lawyers pioneered spam in the notorious 1994 “green card lawyers” episode, in which an Arizona law firm posted an ad to several thousand Usenet newsgroups offering immigration services; the fury among Netizens went on for months. This account is by David Loundy in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.
Two articles still worth a look, though written at a time when web technology was in its infancy, are “Pushing the Advertising Envelope” by T.K. Reid (State Bar of Georgia) and Mark Hankins, “Ambulance Chasers on the Internet: Regulation of Attorney Web Pages” from the Spring 1996 Journal of Technology Law and Policy (U. of Fla. Law School). Hankins writes that “the Web is unfortunately already home to undignified attorney advertising, including a DUI attorney who sponsors a ‘drunk browsing test’ inviting users to perform the tongue-in-cheek computer equivalent of a roadside sobriety test”. (That link is gone, however.) Reid reported, “In an informal poll I did of ten attorneys owning sites on the Web, I inquired as to what steps they had taken to insure that their page complied with their State Bar’s rules for advertising. To my great surprise several responded that they did not consider their sites to constitute advertising, and therefore had done nothing. Instead of advertising their services as an attorney, they maintained that they were acting in another role – that of a publisher of free information.”
Which brings us to “Ethics Spotlight: Attorney Malpractice for Web Site Content” by Laura W. Morgan, part of the Divorce.Net site. Morgan looks at the question whether lawyers might be liable for offering bad advice on their websites which visitors rely on to their detriment. The general answer is no, because law-firm websites are usually well plastered with disclaimers saying, “this isn’t real advice and don’t even think of relying on it”. Fair enough, except that the same lawyers often aren’t so willing to respect other people’s attempts to disclaim liability.
Essay on loser-pays
The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site’s topical page on loser-pays.
* * *
America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward “making whole” its prevailing opponent. It’s long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.
Overlawyered.com‘s editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the “Contract with America”. Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, “Strict Liability for Lawyering”.
Archived lead paint items, pre-June 2003
Archived entries before July 2003 can also be found here.
2003: “Stuart Taylor, Jr. on lead paint litigation“, Mar. 5-7.
2002: “R.I. lead paint case goes to jury“, Oct. 28-29 (& Oct. 30-31: mistrial).
2001: “From the paint wars: a business’s demise, a school district’s hypocrisy“, Nov. 13; “Forbes on lead paint suits, cont’d“, Jun. 8-10; “Ness monster sighted in Narragansett Bay” (Rhode Island, Ness Motley), Jun. 7 (& see Dec. 27-28, 1999 re R.I.); “Reparations: take a number“, Apr. 17 (& see Olson, Reason, Nov. 2000); “‘Painting the town — with lawsuits’“, Mar. 7-8; “‘Bogus’ assault on Norton“, Jan. 18.
2000: “The right to be poisoned“, Nov. 30; “A job offer for the judge“, Sept. 25-26 (see also April 12, 2001); “Maryland: knowledge, notice not needed to sue landlords over lead“, Apr. 24; “Game over four decades ago: let’s change the rules” (retroactive Md. legislation), Mar. 15; see also Baltimore Sun special coverage); “New York court nixes market-share liability for paint“, Jan. 17.
1999: “‘The Dutch Boy isn’t Joe Camel’“, Nov. 10; “Covers the earth with litigation“, Oct. 14.
Archived pharmaceutical and vaccine items, pre-June 2003
Archived entries before July 2003 can also be found here (pharmaceuticals) and here (vaccines).
Pharmaceuticals, 2003: “‘Diet drug litigation leads to fat fees’” (fen-phen, ephedra), May 30-Jun. 1; “Courtroom assault on drugmakers“, May 27; “Mississippi investigation heats up“, May 7; “Jury clears Bayer in cholesterol-drug case“, Mar. 19; “New Medicare drug benefit? Link it to product liability reform“, Mar. 10-11. 2002: “Fen-phen settlement abuses: the plot thickens“, Sept. 27-29 (& Dec. 16-17, 2002, Feb. 25-26, 2002, Dec. 28, 2001, Aug. 18, 1999); “Ignominious wind-down to Norplant campaign“, Sept. 9-10 (& Aug. 11 & Aug. 27, 1999); “You mean I’m suing that nice doctor?” (Propulsid), Aug. 1 (& see Sept. 6-8); “‘Tampa Taliban’ mom blames acne drug“, Apr. 18 (& Feb. 1-3); “Pharmaceutical roundup” (fen-phen, contraceptive Pill, Viagra, psychiatric drugs), Apr. 16-17; “‘Can pain treatment survive our addiction to law?’” (OxyContin), Apr. 10 (& Aug. 27, May 30, Jan. 23-24, 2002, Aug. 7-8, July 25, 2001)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 11); “Omit a peripheral defendant, get sued for legal malpractice” (tetracycline), Feb. 15-17; “‘Companies may be liable for drugs used in rapes’“, Jan. 25-27. 2001: “Texas jury clears drugmaker in first Rezulin case“, Dec. 19 (& update Jan. 9-10, 2002: it loses second trial); “For client-chasers, daytime TV gets results“, Dec. 18; “Bioterror unpreparedness“, Nov. 28; “Cipro side effects? Sue!“, Nov. 1; “Suit blames drugmaker for Columbine“, Oct. 24-25; “‘Plaintiff’s lawyers going on defense’” (Scruggs represents Sulzer Orthopedics), Oct. 9; “Propulsid verdict; ‘Robbery on Highway 61’“, Oct. 1; “Antidepressant blamed for killing spree” (Paxil), June 13; “Mississippi’s forum-shopping capital” (Fayette), May 4-6 (& see June 22-24 (Amity Shlaes)); “Anti-Ritalin lawyers still acting out“, Apr. 13-15 (& Sept. 18, Sept. 22-24, 2000); “Target: Alka-Seltzer” (PPA), Apr. 6-8 (& see Sept. 10); “The malaria drug made him do it“, Mar. 28. 2000: “Turn of the screw” (pedicle screw lawsuits), Oct. 24 (& see “Fee fights“, Aug. 2, 2001); “‘Controversial drug makes a comeback’” (Bendectin may be reintroduced in U.S.), Sept. 27-28 (& July 21, 1999); “Australian roundup” (Copper-7 IUD), Sept. 6-7; “‘Lilly’s legal strategy disarmed Prozac lawyers’“, May 8. 1999: “World according to Ron Motley” (drugmakers among next targets of earth’s richest lawyer), Nov. 1; “Rhode Island A.G.: let’s do latex gloves next“, Oct. 26.
Breast implants, 2002: “Pharmaceutical roundup” (silicone implants popular in Canada), Apr. 16-17. 2001: “Fee fights“, Aug. 2. 2000: “O’Quinn a top Gore recount angel“, Dec. 15-17; “‘Hush — good news on silicone’“, Nov. 29; “No breast cancer link“, Oct. 23; “From our mail sack: hyperactive lawyers“, Sept. 22-24; Feds file Medicare recoupment lawsuit over silicone implants“, April 6; “Study shows breast implants pose little risk“, March 20. 1999: “No spotlight on me, thanks” (John O’Quinn obtains gag order against lawyers for dissatisfied clients), August 4; “Never saying you’re sorry”, July 2.
Vaccines: “Trial lawyers vs. thimerosal“, Dec. 20-22, 2002 (& Jun. 18-19, 2003); “Vaccine industry perennially in court“, Nov. 7-8, 2001; “Lawsuit fears slow bioterror vaccines“, Oct. 22; “Study: DPT and MMR vaccines not linked to brain injury“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 2001; “Vaccine compensation and its discontents“, Nov. 13, 2000.
Other links: Breast implants:
Gina Kolata, “Panel Confirms No Major Illness Tied To Breast Implants”, New York Times, June 21, 1999.
National Institute of Medicine 1999 study
Reason magazine “Breaking Issues”
Food and Drug Administration update
Breast Implant Litigation Page (Prof. David Bernstein, George Mason U.)
Marcia Angell, “Science on Trial: Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo, August 1996.
Walter Olson, review of Marcia Angell, “Science on Trial” (National Review, November 11, 1996)
Other links: Contraceptives:
Marc Arkin, “Products Liability and the Threat to Contraception” (Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo, February 1999).
Archived class action materials, pre-July 2003
Madison County, Ill., 2003: “To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15; “The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9; “‘Lawyers who won $10 bil. verdict had donated to judge’“, Apr. 30; “A bond too far“, Apr. 4-6; “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3; “Mad County pays out again” (“light” cigarette class action), Mar. 24. 2002: “Malpractice-crisis latest: let ’em become CPAs“, Oct. 7-8; “Intel sued in notorious county“, Aug. 30-Sept. 2. 2000: “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29. 1999: “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4 (& Nov. 30; Feb. 29, 2000)
Securities class actions, 2003: “Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “‘Lawyers find gold mine in Phila. pension cases’“, Mar. 21-23; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002: “Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2; “Financial scandals: legislate in haste“, Jul. 12-14; “‘How to stuff a wild Enron’“, Apr. 22; “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18. 2001: “Short-sellers had right to a drop in stock price“, Nov. 12; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Dotcom wreckage: sue ’em all“, Aug. 7-8; “‘2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims’” (Schoengold & Sporn), July 23; “Razorfish, Cisco, IPO suits“, May 22; “Securities law: time for loser-pays“, Mar. 2-4; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22). 2000: “Did securities-law reform fail?“, Nov. 10-12; “Emulex fraud: gotta find a defendant“, Sept. 4; “Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Lion’s share” (commodity brokerage case), May 5-7; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26. 1999: “Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (Second Circuit rejects fees in Texaco action), Oct. 9-10; “Effects of shareholder-suit reform“, Sept. 22.
Fee review, 2003: “Vitamin class action: some questions for the lawyers“, May 28; “Sauce for the gander dept.“, May 19; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002: “FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees“, Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24. 2001: “Court’s chutzpah-award nominee” (Wells Fargo), Oct. 17-18; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Coupon settlement? Pay the lawyers in coupons“, Mar. 16-18. 2000: “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “‘Accord tossed: Class members ‘got nothing’” (Equifax, 7th Circuit), Jan. 6. 1999: “Class action fee control: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law” (Ninth Circuit on “separately negotiated” fees), Nov. 30; “Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (2nd Circuit, Texaco), Oct. 9-10.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 2003: “Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “Milberg copyrights its complaints“, Jan. 3-6. 2002: “Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24 (& Dec. 5, 2000, Jun. 22-24, 2001); “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18; “Milberg faces second probe” (Phila. politics), Feb. 27-28; “‘Probe of Milberg Weiss has bar buzzing’“, Jan. 28-29; “‘In a class of his own’” (Melvyn Weiss profiled in The Economist), Jan. 21-22. 2001: “NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement); “Update: cookie lawsuit crumbles“, May 9; “‘Lawyers to Get $4.7 Million in Suit Against Iomega’” (zip drive defect allegations), May 8; “California electricity linkfest” (representing San Francisco), March 26; “(Another) ‘Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters’” (Calif. cities and counties), March 21-22; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22). 2000: “Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26; “Class-actioneers’ woes“, Mar. 1; “Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 1-3, Oct. 13, 1999).
Toshiba laptop settlement: see separate page on high-tech law.
Microsoft class actions: “Microsoft case and AG contributions“, Apr. 3-4, 2002; “Columnist-fest” (proposed settlement), Nov. 27, 2001; “Hiring talent from the opposing camp“, Feb. 28, 2000; “In race to sue Microsoft, some trip“, Dec. 23-26; “Microsoft roundup“, Dec. 3-5; “‘Actions without class’“, Dec. 2; “Class actions vs. high-tech“, Nov. 23; “Vice President gets an earful“, Nov. 22; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 17; “Fins circle in water“, Nov. 13-14; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 11; “Microsoft ruling: guest editorials“, Nov. 8; “Why doesn’t Windows cost more?“, Oct. 27; “Are you sure you want to delete ‘Microsoft’?“, Oct. 11.
Employment class actions: see separate page on employment law.
|
Overlawyered.com commentaries: “Texas’s giant legal reform“, Jun. 18-19, 2003. “To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15, 2003; “‘Reforming class action suits’” (Class Action Fairness Act), Apr. 25-27, 2003. “Judge kicks class-action lawyers off case” (H&R Block), May 15, 2003. “Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side“, Mar. 15-16, 2003. “FBI probes Philadelphia’s hiring of class action firm“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003. “Ninth Circuit panel sniffs collusion in bias settlement fees“, Dec. 16-17, 2002. Auctions: “Third Circuit cuts class action fees“, Sept. 25-26, 2001; “Letter to the editor” (competitive bidding for class representation), Jun. 13, 2001 (& Oct. 1-2, 2002). “7,000 missing colors, many of them crisply green“, Aug. 29, 2002. “‘Junk-fax’ suit demands $2 trillion“, Aug. 26, 2002; “Junk-fax litigation: blood in the water“, July 24, 2001; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27, 2001; “Junk fax litigation, continued“, March 3-5, 2000; “In Houston, expensive menus” (unsolicited faxes), Oct. 22, 1999. “Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. “The mystery of the transgenic corn“, May 14-15, 2002. “Editorial-fest“, Mar. 11, 2002; “Washington Post on class action reform” (good editorial), Aug. 29-30, 2001; “Actions without class” (Washington Post editorial), Dec. 2, 1999. “The thrill of it all: plaintiffs win 28 cent coupon“, Feb. 27-28, 2002. “‘Toyota buyers’ suit yields cash — for lawyers’“, Feb. 18-19, 2002; “Golf ball class action” (Acushnet Co.), Nov. 18-19, 1999; “Class action coupon clippers” (Washington Post on settlement abuses), Nov. 15, 1999. “‘Congress looks to change class action system’“, Feb. 11-12, 2002; “‘They’re making a federal case out of it … in state court’“, Nov. 7-8, 2001. “Selling out the class?” (allegations of collusive settlement in H&R Block case), April 5, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). “Swiss banks vindicated“, Nov. 1, 2001. Letter to the editor (lawyers’ own incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). “Counterterrorism bill footnote” (forum shopping), Oct. 16, 2001; “Best little forum-shopping in Texas” (class actions make their way to Texarkana), August 27, 1999. “Employment class actions: EEOC to the rescue“, Sept. 10, 2001. “220 percent rate of farmer participation” (USDA black farmer settlement), July 25, 2001. “The rest of Justice O’Connor’s speech“, July 6-8, 2001. “Blockbuster Video class action“, June 11, 2001 (& see July 3-4 (Vince Carroll column)). “Letter to the editor” (First USA credit cards), June 13, 2001; “Bank error in your favor” (credit card holders), Sept. 27-28, 2000; & letter to the editor, Sept. 3, 2001. “Ghost blurber case“, June 12, 2001. “NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5, 2001 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement). “Insurance class settlement scuttled“, Feb. 26, 2001. “Florida lawyers’ day jobs, cont’d” (hotbed of class action filing), Dec. 11-12, 2000; “Florida’s legal talent, before the Chad War” (Florida Marlins ticketholders), Dec. 8-10, 2000. “Obese soldiers class action“, Nov. 10-12, 2000. “Sweepstakes, for sure” (American Family Publishers), Oct. 20-22, 2000; “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29, 2000. “Courtroom crusade on drug prices?“, Oct. 19, 2000. “Class actions: are we all litigants yet?“, Aug. 23-24, 2000. Coke: “Class-action lawyers to Coke clients: you’re fired“, July 21-23, 2000; “‘Coke plaintiff eavesdrops on lawyers; case unravels’” (what do lawyers tell each other after they think their clients have hung up on the conference call?), July 19-20; “‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coke, cuts lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000. “Target Detroit” (lawyers countersue DaimlerChrysler and exec personally), July 19-20, 2000; “Turning the tables” (DaimlerChrysler sues class action lawyers), Nov. 12, 1999. “Class-action assault on eBay“, July 13, 2000. “AOL ‘pop-up’ class action” (ads said to be unfair), June 27, 2000. “Rise, fall, and rise of class actions” (enormous increase in filing rates in past decade), Mar. 10-12, 2000. “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4, 1999 (update Nov. 30: he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending); “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case” (judge approves settlement including legal fee request; agreement reached to end libel suit), Feb. 29, 2000. “Secrets of class action defense“, Feb. 25, 2000; “Mobile Register probes class action biz” (BancBoston and other mortgage escrow cases), Feb. 7, 2000. “AOL upgrade’s sharp elbows“, Feb. 12-13, 2000. “Weekend reading: columnist-fest” (Laura Pulfer on suit against Ralph Lauren outlet stores; Alex Cockburn on Swiss banks), Feb. 5-6, 2000. “From our mail sack: unclear on the concept“, Jan. 28, 2000. “Santa came late” (suit against Toys-R-Us for missing Christmas delivery), Jan. 19, 2000. “Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10, 2000; “Pokemon cards update“, Oct. 13, 1999; “Pokemon-card class actions“, Oct. 1-3, 1999 “Expert witnesses and their ghostwriters” (life insurance class actions), Jan. 4, 2000. “Lawyers for famine and wilderness-busting?” (anti-biotech), Jan. 3, 1999. “Class action toy story” (antitrust), Dec. 29-30, 1999. “‘In race to sue Microsoft, some trip’” (lawyers inadvertently copy details of pleadings in earlier cases), Dec. 23-26, 1999. “Rolling the dice, cont’d” (suits over online gambling), Dec. 7, 1999 (earlier report, Aug. 26). “Beware of market crashes” (class action sought against E*Trade for alleged computer-related trading losses), Nov. 26-28, 1999. “Are they kidding, or not-kidding?” (proposals for suits against makers of fattening foods, losing sports teams), Nov. 15, 1999. “Public by 2-1 margin disapproves of tobacco suits” (if class actions are filed on behalf of the public, why don’t they reflect public opinion?), Nov. 5-7, 1999. “Demolition derby for consumer budgets” (class action against State Farm over generic crash parts), Oct. 8, 1999. “Power attracts power” (Boies joins anti-HMO effort), Sept. 30, 1999; “Impending assault on HMOs“, Sept. 30. “$49 million lawyers’ fee okayed in case where clients got nothing” (secondhand smoke action), Sept. 28, 1999; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami” (tobacco class-action verdict), Jul. 8, 1999. “Judge throws out four WWII reparations lawsuits“, Sept. 20, 1999. “Tainted cycle” (Milwaukee taxpayers sue themselves), Sept. 2, 1999. “Three insurers sued for $100 million” (how the press covers class action announcements), Aug. 20, 1999. Resources on class actions are found at many different places on Overlawyered.com. For example, most of the massive lawsuits filed against individual industries over personal injury to classes of consumers are covered on pages specific to the subject matter of the cases, such as the pages on firearms litigation, tobacco litigation, managed-care litigation, breast implant litigation, product liability, and so forth. This page assembles resources on class actions as a procedural device and as an institution. Among topics covered are the unique role in this area of an “entrepreneurial” plaintiff’s bar that decides on its own behalf who and how to sue and lines up clients as needed; the history of the device and the reasons why it is either sharply limited or virtually unknown in the courts of other industrial democracies; the distinctive ethical problems that arise because of the extreme difficulty of policing lawyers’ faithfulness to the interests of the absent class; and the operations of the class action “industry” in the areas in which it has been a familiar part of the American legal landscape for decades, namely shareholder litigation and class actions over consumer and antitrust grievances aggregating large numbers of (usually smallish) claims. Background — procedural history, ethical issues: Overlawyered.com‘s editor wrote about class actions (as well as “champerty and maintenance”, the “invisible-fist theory”, and other topics) in Chapter 3 of his book The Litigation Explosion; an excerpt is online. Chapter 5 (“The New Town Meeting”) of Peter Huber’s book Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences contains a valuable discussion of the class action format, particularly as it applies to the so-called toxic tort; it is unfortunately not online. Lawrence Schonbrun, a Northern California attorney who has developed a specialty in filing challenges to excessive class action attorneys’ fee requests, wrote a prescient article in 1996 on “coupon deals”, “separately negotiated” fees from defendants, and other innovative ways the class action bar was finding to escape scrutiny of its remuneration. (“Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier“) Shareholder litigation: A starting point for research on this topic is Stanford Law School’s comprehensive Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. See also the commentaries on this site. In Felzen v. Andreas (1998), Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit wrote that “Many thoughtful students of the subject conclude, with empirical support, that derivative actions do little to promote sound management and often hurt the firm by diverting the managers’ time from running the business while diverting the firm’s resources to the plaintiffs’ lawyers without providing a corresponding benefit.” He cited a long list of scholarly articles including Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 Stanford L. Rev. 497 (1991), which found that the “structural characteristics common to securities class actions . . . combine to produce outcomes that are not a function of the substantive merits of the case.” and Roberta Romano, The Shareholder Suit: Litigation without Foundation?, 7 J. L. Econ. & Organization 55 (1991), which examined 39 shareholder suits filed between the late 1960s and 1987 and concluded that “shareholder litigation is a weak, if not ineffective, instrument of corporate governance.” In 1995 Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which aimed to rectify some of the worst abuses in the field. This client memo from Fried, Frank describes the wider powers institutional investors obtained under the act to influence litigation going on purportedly in the name of investors such as themselves. In Polar International Brokerage v. Reeve, a New York federal judge rejected a proposed class action settlement and request for $200,000 in attorneys’ fees, saying it offered shareholders “nothing of real value”. (Deborah Pines, National Law Journal, May 24, 1999). Although the securities bar frequently alleges that well-known companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are run by crooked managements that fleece their shareholders, they ironically turn out to keep a lot of their (very substantial) stock holdings invested in the very same companies. (Paul Elias, San Francisco Recorder, June 8, 1999). Among the reasons is that in many cases they have accepted stock as payment for dropping earlier legal actions. Other class action resources: The Federalist Society publishes a Class Action Watch newsletter. The first issue is in conventional web-page format. The second issue is a PDF document (Adobe Acrobat needed to view; get it here). Among the better-known law firms representing class action plaintiffs are Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Cohen Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Krause & Kalfayan, and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. Actuary Jack Patterson has written an account for a plaintiff’s lawyer readership of class actions against life insurance companies, one of the big practice areas of the 1990s. The class action bar also files many antitrust suits on behalf of large groups of consumers or business purchasers. The Antitrust Policy web site collects many worthwhile resources on antitrust law. Archived Canadian items, pre-July 2003“‘Father files suit after son fails to make MVP award’” (hockey, New Brunswick), Nov. 8-10, 2002. “‘Sorry, Slimbo, you’re in my seats’“, June 7, 2001 (& updates Dec. 15-16, 2001, Oct. 25-27, 2002); “Obese fliers“, Dec. 20, 2000; “Welcome Toronto Star readers” (Jason Brooks column, disabled rights), Sept. 27-28, 2000. Personal responsibility, 2002: “Skating first, instructions later” (Edmonton), Sept. 25-26; “‘Woman freezes; sues city, cabbie’” (Winnipeg), Sept. 18-19; Personal responsibility roundup” (social host alcohol liability), Sept. 12; “Paroled prisoner: pay for not supervising me“, Jan. 4-6. 2001: “Don’t rock the Coke machine“, July 20-22; “‘Gambling addiction’ class action” (Loto-Quebec), June 20 (& update May 20-21, 2002; “‘Woman who drove drunk gets $300,000’” (Barrie, Ont.), Feb. 7-8; “By reader acclaim” (sues alleged crack dealers over own addiction), Jan. 11. 2000: “Not my fault, I” (woman who murdered daughter sues psychiatrists), May 17; “Blue-ribbon excuse syndromes” (Metis Indian defendant allowed to cite cultural oppression as defense to stabbing charge), Feb. 12-13. “Cash demanded for drug users and panhandlers inconvenienced by film crews” (Vancouver), Aug. 23-25, 2002. “Activist judges north of the border“, May 31-Jun. 2, 2002 (& letter to the editor, Jun. 14). “Flowers, perfume in airline cabins not OK?“, May 17-19, 2002; “Scented hair gel, deodorant could mean jail time for Canadian youth“, Apr. 24, 2000. “‘Unharmed woman awarded $104,000’” (Manitoba chemical exposure), May 6, 2002. “‘Targeting “big food”‘” (Lemieux, National Post), Apr. 29-30, 2002. “Pharmaceutical roundup” (silicone implants popular), Apr. 16-17, 2002. “Web speech roundup” (flag logo on website), Mar. 25-26, 2002. “Tribulations of the light prison sleeper“, Mar. 25-26, 2002; “Prison litigation: ‘Kittens and Rainbows Suites’” (cellmate’s smoking violates rights), Jan. 11-13; “Paroled prisoner: pay for not supervising me“, Jan. 4-6, 2002. “Couldn’t order 7-Up in French” (suing Air Canada for $525,000), Mar. 18, 2002; “Gotta regulate ’em all” (Quebec official upset that Pok?n cards not in French), Dec. 16, 1999. “Stop, they said” (Manitoba: stop sign too vague?), Feb. 4-5, 2002. “Planners tie up land for twenty years” (plus B.C. land use story), Jan. 18-20, 2002. Family law, 2002: “‘Avoiding court is best defence’” (Dave Brown), Jan. 14-15. 2001: “‘Crying wolf’” (Christie Blatchford on sexual abuse charges), Oct. 30; “Why she’s quitting law practice” (Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14; “Canadian court: divorce settlements never final“, May 15; “‘Victim is sued for support’“, Feb. 9-11; “Solomon’s child” (Donna LaFramboise), Jan. 26-28. 2000: “Pilloried, broke, alone” (LaFramboise on “deadbeat dads”), April 10. 1999: “Down repressed-memory lane: distracted when she signed” (Ont. judge voids separation agreement), Dec. 29-30. “Front-row spectator sues ‘reckless’ exotic dancer” (B.C.), Jan. 7-8, 2002; “Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame” (injured by exotic dancer in Ottawa), Aug. 14, 2000; “‘Toronto Torch’ age-bias suit” (stripper in Brantford), May 23, 2000. “Overlawyered schools roundup” (challenge to Ontario standards), Dec. 7-9, 2001. “Columnist-fest” (asylum policies), Nov. 27, 2001; “Opponents of profiling, still in the driver’s seat” (Air Canada), Nov. 2-4; “Security holes: to the North…” (anti-terrorism security), Sept. 14-16, 2001. “‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe“, Oct. 17-18, 2001; “Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19, 1999. “‘Hama to sue bridge owners over her daughter’s fall’” (Capilano Suspension Bridge, Vancouver), Oct. 8, 2001. “Fear of losing welfare benefits deemed coercive” (N.S.), Oct. 3-4, 2001. Zero tolerance, etc.: “John Leo on Overlawyered.com” (Halifax: snowball-like gestures banned), Aug. 15, 2001; “Fateful fiction” (Cornwall, Ont.), Jan. 30, 2001; “Hug protest in Halifax” (school’s no-physical-contact policy), March 2, 2000; “Zero tolerance roundup” (Windsor: 11-year-old’s fictional school essay), Dec. 27-28, 1999. “Why she’s quitting law practice” (Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14, 2001. “Welcome Bourque.org readers“, June 26, 2001. “‘Dead teen’s family sues Take Our Kids To Work’“, May 31, 2001. “Holiday special” (misconduct by N.B. lawyer), May 28, 2001. “‘Insect lawyer ad creates buzz’” (Torys, Toronto), May 23, 2001; “‘Not-a-Lawyer’” (Vancouverite’s business card), Feb. 10-11, 2000. “Columnist-fest” (Mark Steyn on Indian residential schools), May 1, 2001; “Bankrupting Canadian churches?“, Aug. 23-24, 2000. “Canada’s secret legal aid“, April 10, 2001. “Putting the ‘special’ in special sauce” (alleged rat in Big Mac”, March 29, 2001. “Saves her friend’s life, then sues her“, Jan. 3, 2001. “Canada reins in expert witnesses“, Nov. 22-23, 2000. “Malpractice outlays on rise in Canada“, Oct. 2, 2000. “‘Mother sues over lack of ice time for goalie son’” (Quebec), Sept. 11, 2000. “‘Mugging victim “stupid”, judge says’” (Winnipeg case), Aug. 2, 2000. “‘Skydivers don’t sue’“, May 26, 2000 (update July 6: Canadian diver prevails in suit against teammate). “Cash for trash, and worse” (“Vancouver solution” for Microsoft?), June 26, 2000. “Welcome Montreal Gazette readers” (columnist Doug Camilli cites this website), June 7, 2000; “Trop d’avocats.com” (we are recommended by the Gazette), Oct. 18, 1999. “‘More lawyers than we really need?’” (aftermath of Walkerton, Ont. E. Coli outbreak: columnist cites this website), June 2-4, 2000. “Less suing = less suffering” (Sasketchewan no-fault auto study), April 24, 2000 (& update June 26). “Swissair crash aftermath” (Peggy’s Cove disaster in U.S. courts), March 14, 2000; “Montreal Gazette ‘Lawsuit of the Year’” (bagpipers sue Swissair for lost income), Jan. 17, 2000. “‘Girl puts head under guillotine; sues when hurt’“, March 8, 2000. “Ontario judge okays hockey-fan lawsuit“, Jan. 12, 2000; “Spreading to Canada?” (hockey fan sues Alexei Yashin), Oct. 20, 1999. “Update: toilet of terror” (Canadian tourist visits Starbucks in NYC, sues), Dec. 8, 1999; “Starbucks toilet lawsuit“, Dec. 1, 1999. “Mounties vs. your dish” (satellite regulations), Nov. 1, 1999. “Sensitivity in cow-naming“, Oct. 21, 1999; “Weekend reading” (Bugs Bunny television complaint), Aug. 21-22, 1999. “You may already not be a winner” (prisoner suit over sweepstakes entry), Aug. 23, 1999. For a discussion of the loser-pays principle, which Canada has retained to a considerable extent in its courts, see our loser-pays page |